[diversity] Experiences from the Django community

On 12/07/2017 13:24, Erik Romijn wrote:
> On intersectionality: any D&I initiative that wants to stay away from
> the complexity of intersectionality is dead in the water, as is an
> initiative that wants to treat everyone equal. 
[snip]
> We can not treat everyone the same,
> because we are doing this in a society where marginalised groups and
> many others are already not treated equal or provided equal
> opportunities. And simplifying efforts to “sex discrimination” is
> simply way too narrow.

I wanted to address this point separately, because it cuts to the core
of one of the discussions we are having, and because Erik is not the
only participant to have spoken against the principle of equality.

If we adopt the idea of non-discrimination, equal treatment and respect
for the individual as a participant as our organising principle, this
will indeed leave certain approaches to diversity based on bias and
preference "dead in the water". I don't think we should be ashamed of
that; we should embrace it.

But that doesn't mean that there is no legitimate agenda for diversity
and inclusion. So I'd like, in this e-mail, to set out a non-exhaustive
list of activities I would like this taskforce to consider as part of an
inclusion agenda that respects people as individuals.


1. Commitment to non-discrimination.

We should draft and recommend for community consensus approval a
commitment to avoid discrimination and bias. Nobody should be treated
more or less favourably in their participation in the RIPE community on
account of their sex, race, gender self-identification, adult age,
sexual orientation, nationality within the RIPE NCC service region, and
probably a number of other characteristics. Are there further
characteristics that should normally be irrelevant, but might possibly
be relevant in certain defined ways or in particular circumstances? We
should work this through.

2. Survey of experiences and attitudes to existing behaviour

We should consider a community survey to discover
- have participants experienced abusively discriminatory treatment?
(presumably some will have, but we need to ascertain prevalence)
- how did this affect them?
- in particular, would RIPE participants feel comfortable recommending
participation to others, or would they feel the need to warn/caution
about the existence of abusive behaviours
- is there a community appetite for more formalised means of policing
such behaviours?

I think we should also consider trying to actively survey former
community participants who no longer participate, to discover if
non-participation was motivated by a previous negative experience
(again, prevalence); and also, if not, to discover if there was another
identifiable lack that might be remediable.

3. Regional inclusion: venue policy

My own perception is that RIPE meetings are predominantly held in
Northern, Western and Central Europe, with an under-representation for
venues further east, in Central Asia and the Gulf region. We could start
by looking at actual data on venues, and also ask the NCC how they
currently go about choosing a venue, and what considerations (and
constraints) apply.
Then I think we need to have a discussion about what constitutes "fair
circulation". Should we have a strict policy of circulating between
subregions (e.g. Scandinavia, Balkans, Gulf, Southern EU, Caucusas etc)?
Should we accept bias in favour of regions with more Internet users?
With more network operators? With more existing RIPE participants?
Permanently, or as a temporary concession to pragmatism, while aiming
towards stricter circulation?

4. Regional inclusion: awareness raising

The NCC is already conducting an awareness programme to seek to reduce
non-participation by reason of lack of awareness in particular regions.
What part could or should the RIPE community play in furthering that
goal? Are there opportunities to encourage direct partnership between
existing community participants (or their employers/affiliates) and the
NCC, rather than expecting the NCC to carry this all on their own?

Linked with this is the issue of relations between RIPE and local NOGs
and related groups. Again, this is being developed by the NCC - and
again, we should consider whether there are opportunities for the
community, or participants within it, to work more actively with the NCC
on this.

5. Practical barriers to accessibility

Lack of certain facilities may discourage some people from
participating. Childcare/creche facilities have already been mentioned
as an example of a facility that might assist participation. Are there
others we can think of? Perhaps we should ask the community for ideas.

A few possibilities that spring to my mind (unfiltered for validity,
viability or good sense):
- any possible improvements to remote participation?
- do we consider needs of wheelchair users/other disabilities?
sufficiently consistently to be relied upon?
- financial support?
- consider whether Mon-Fri is always the best choice of days (are we
doing Sun-Thurs in Dubai??)
- while I think English is likely to need to remain the working
language, is there more that can be done to assist those who don't speak
it proficiently or who lack confidence?
- would some potential participants benefit from more direct support in
persuading their employers to authorise their attendance? (I know the
ITU offers "letters of invitation"; is that a useful idea? How about
"Dear boss, Your employee has asked to attend a RIPE meeting. But what
do you get out of it?")

That's all I've got for now, but I'm sure it's just a start on what we
might look at to help make this community as welcoming as it can be.

I hope this demonstrates that an agenda based on respect for
participants as individuals rather than as demographic statistics is a
positive and active agenda worth supporting.


-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA